Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of not allowing the death penalty in the United States.

This is how the debate will be layed out:

1st round: Acceptence only (anything more will be an automatic forfeit)!2nd round: Opening argument / statement3rd round: first round of counterarguments4th round: Final counterarguments and closeing statement

1. Too many innocent people: "The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences online on Apr. 28, 2014, estimated that 4.1% of death row sentences (1 in 25) were wrongful, a "conservative estimate” according to the authors and twice the number of death row cases that were actually overturned."This means that a large number of people in the long run are going to be killed wrongly - and think of all the people we wrongly killed in the past. What happens when the mistake is discovered after a man has been executed for a crime he did not commit? What do we say to his children? Do we erect an apologetic tombstone over his grave? What good will that do?

2. There is racial and economic discrimination in application of the death penalty: "About 99 percent of the death-row inmates are men. Of the 1,058 prisoners on death row by Aug. 20,1982, 42 percent were black, whereas about 12 percent of the United States population is black. Those who receive the death penalty still tend to be poor, poorly educated and represented by public defenders or court-appointed lawyers." This is a racist and sexist act that happens to frequently to be allowed.

3. The death penalty gives some of the worst offenders publicity that they do not deserve: "While the death penalty undoubtedly deters some would-be murderers, there is evidence that it encourages others— especially the unstable who are attracted to media immortality like moths to a flame. If instead of facing heady weeks before television cameras, they faced a lifetime of obscurity in prison, the path of violence might seem less glamorous to them." This gives the people who least deserve publicity, publicity that they earned by commiting a crime. What kind of message does that send to our country?

4. The death penalty involves medical doctors, who are sworn to preserve life, in the act of killing: In 1980 the American Medical Association, responding to this innovation, declared that a doctor should not participate in an execution - it is AGAINST A DOCTORS' OATH. When doctors use their stethoscopes to indicate whether the electric chair has done its job, they are assisting the executioner - dosen't this go against everythign what being a doctor is about? Saving lifes?

5. It is hipocritical: Why are we killing people for killing people? Why are we doing the same thing we are punishing others for doing? That is obsurd.

6. The death penalty is an expression of the absolute power of the state; abolition of that penalty is a much- needed limit on government power: "What makes the state so pure that it has the right to take life? Look at the record of governments throughout history—so often operating with deception, cruelty and greed, so often becoming masters of the citizens they are supposed to serve. "Forbidding a man's execution," Camus said, "would amount to proclaiming publicly that society and the state are not absolute values." It would amount to saying that there are some things even the state may not do." We are always complaning how the states are given too much power - why should they have control over killing people also?

7. There are strong religious reasons for many to oppose the death penalty: "Mr. Viguerie wrote in a recent book, "that Christ would oppose the killing of a human being as punishment for a crime." This view is supported by the New Testament story about the woman who faced execution by stoning (John 8:7, "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone"). Former Senator Harold Hughes (D., Iowa), arguing against the death penalty in 1974, declared: "'Thou shalt not kill' is the shortest of the Ten Commandments, uncomplicated by qualification or exception....It is as clear and awesomely commanding as the powerful thrust of chain lightning out of a dark summer sky." Even preists and strong religious figures are against it for clear reasons - why should we effect religions for others' wrong doing?

8. There is a better alternative - life without parole: This sentence would make the criminals suffer every single day and be forced to think about what they have done. It is a more harsh sentence because they can not escape the negativity they created - they have to live with it each and every long, boring day. Killing the criminals is an easy way out for them - they will just think; "oh, if I kill people who I hate, then I will die and not have to deal with it." Wouldn't that encourage more criminals to act? This would make crime rates increase.

9. We pay many millions for the death penalty system: "In 1995 the trials for three Washington County murder cases cost more than $1.5 million. One was sentenced to death. The two others, one of whom was found guilty of four murders, are not on death row. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year." It costs much more to execute people then to provide for basic needs of life - why do we need to pay more money for people who did bad things? Why do we have to pay money out of our TAX PAYER MONEY to kill people? Why do we have to pay for criminals we have nothing to do with?

10. Mentally ill people are executed: "One out of every ten who has been executed in the United States since 1977 is mentally ill, according to Amnesty International and the National Association on Mental Illness." This is discrimination and goes against the laws of our country.

(I am looking forward to your opening argument and then we will start round 2 with counterarguments - so don't worry about my arguments just yet - use this round to present as much evidence to support your side as you can ~ Sara)

The death penalty demands that justice should be attributed to the victims of the family. In the United States of America, the Death Penalty is only reserved for the most serious crimes, and somebody he commits such a heinous act, is subject to this punishment. Most Americans recognize this principle as just, as 60% of Americans still believe that the DP is appropriate for homicide. (1)

Regarding the ethics, let me explain a bit further. When a criminal, commits homicide, he violates an major right that was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which is the term ""Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". (2) When you violate the right to live, what moral right does the criminal have to live? Even though the victim and the victim's family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, the Death penalty brings justice to the family.

Contention #2 Deterrence

The Deterrence Theory

The death penalty in fact, does deter crime. According to sources provided by Isaac Ehrlich, currently a University of Buffalo Distinguished Professor of Economics, he figured that according to the deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals "rationally maximize their own self-interest subject to constraints that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere. In other words, criminals will likely not commit the crime, if they feel the costs outweigh the benefits. (3) This theory serves as a deterence to crime, as a socioeconomic factor such as "fear" will keep criminals from committing addtional crimes. Several economists agree to this, regardign Issac Ehrlich studies, Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro reconfirmed his findings. Finally, according to "Joanna M. Shepherd", she concluding 3 factors after her studies. (4)

First, each execution, on average, is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates.

Second, executions deter the murder of whites and African-Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African-Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races.

Third, shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred.

It is quite clear, that according to studies done by economists, and professors, The Detterence theory indeed does apply to also criminals, thus deters crime.

RecidivismOne thing that the death penalty fulfills, is that it prevent recidivism from occuring. According to report published by th Bureau of Justice, it stats that out of 300,000 prisoners who were released in 1994, 67.5% of those criminals re-offended. (5) Out of those, 1.2% of those convicted of homicide were arrested for another homicide within three years of release.(5) These stats are quite high, as reoffending rates for homicide who re-offend between 6 months jump up to 12.5%. The only way to prevent these offenses from being commited again, is the death penalty. Even in jail itself, there is no gurantee that the criminal will not murder someone else. In another report by the Bureau of Justice, 2.1% of all deaths in prison, resulted from homicide. (6) This way, it is guranteed the death penalty would have saved lives.

Trends of different states and other correlations.

You can see here, in this particular graph, the Captial Punishments states are quite lower, compared to the Non-capital punishment states. Here is another interesting fact, when the death penalty was suspended nationwide from 1968 to 1976, the murder rate skyrocketed. By the time the the crime rate began to drop in the United States, those states with the DP actually witnessed a 39% larger drop in murder rates by 1998. (7)

And finally, another report done by the Bureau of Criminal Justice, shows that that when the execution rates were high, there generally were fewer murders. You can also see, during the 1960's and 1980's, when the death penalty was not used, murders skyrocked. (8)

(rebuttal for "justice and public support"): "One of the arguments frequently given in support of the death penalty revolves around the idea that the execution of an offender will provide closure to the grieving family of the victim. However, recent research on the topic has suggested that this may not be the case. A 2012 study conducted in Minnesota produced findings indicating that the death penalty likely does not serve to advance the healing process of the families of victims. This particular study represents the first of its kind to systematically examine the healing process of the families of victims when the death penalty has been given as a sentence. The results of this study indicate higher levels of physical, psychological, and behavioral health in victims’ family members in cases where life sentences were given, as opposed to the death penalty, as well as greater satisfaction with the criminal justice system in these individuals." CHECK THIS FOLLOWING LINK FOR THE STUDY: http://discover.umn.edu...The study basically debunks everything you have just stated.

(rebuttal for "deterrence"): You are basing your assumption about "fear" from one professor, so I will base mine off of multiple:

"H. Lee Sarokin, LLB, former US District Court and US Court of Appeals Judge, wrote in his Jan. 15, 2011 article "Is It Time to Execute the Death Penalty?” on the Huffington Post website:

"In my view deterrence plays no part whatsoever. Persons contemplating murder do not sit around the kitchen table and say I won't commit this murder if I face the death penalty, but I will do it if the penalty is life without parole. I do not believe persons contemplating or committing murder plan to get caught or weigh the consequences. Statistics demonstrate that states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with it, but frankly I think those statistics are immaterial and coincidental. Fear of the death penalty may cause a few to hesitate, but certainly not enough to keep it in force..."

"Michael L. Radelet, PhD, Sociology Professor and Department Chair at the University of Colorado-Boulder, wrote in his 2009 article "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists” in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology:

"Our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world’s top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth... 88.2% of polled criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent... 9.2% answered that the statement '[t]he death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides' was accurate... Overall, it is clear that however measured, fewer than 10% of the polled experts believe the deterrence effect of the death penalty is stronger than that of long-term imprisonment... Recent econometric studies, which posit that the death penalty has a marginal deterrent effect beyond that of long-term imprisonment, are so limited or flawed that they have failed to undermine consensus.

In short, the consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment."

"John Lamperti, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Dartmouth College, wrote in his Mar. 2010 paper "Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder? A Brief Look at the Evidence," published at math.dartmouth.edu:

"...[I]f there were a substantial net deterrent effect from capital punishment under modern U.S. conditions, the studies we have surveyed should clearly reveal it. They do not...

If executions protected innocent lives through deterrence, that would weigh in the balance against capital punishment's heavy social costs. But despite years of trying, this benefit has not been proven to exist; the only certain effects of capital punishment are its liabilities."

"Tomislav Kovandzic, PhD, Associate Professor of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas, wrote in his 2009 paper "Does the Death Penalty Save Lives?" in Criminology and Public Policy:

"Our results provide no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide... Although policymakers and the public can continue to base support for use of the death penalty on retribution, religion, or other justifications, defending its use based solely on its deterrent effect is contrary to the evidence presented here. At a minimum, policymakers should refrain from justifying its use by claiming that it is a deterrent to homicide and should consider less costly, more effective ways of addressing crime." (http://deathpenalty.procon.org...)

(rebuttal for "recidivism"): As you have stated in your first paragraph, "the Death Penalty is only reserved for the most serious crimes." Lets pretend that the death penalty is illegal for this mindset. Now imagine this: the death penalty was just banned and a serial killer was suppost to be put to death a few days later - but he cannot now. The police would NEVER release him to the public again in fear of him killing more people - so they keep him in prison forever. Now back to reality, let that sink in. If the death penalty is only for the worst of the worst, then why, if the penalty did not even exist, would security allow those prisoners out into society again? The answer is, they would'nt/they won't. So save that argument for prisoners who are going to be released who are not on the death row or were suppost to be executed on the first place - and not for prisoners who will not be released anyway.

Inmates who have been placed in death row, are simply waiting for their execution, and have a chance to be released if they are innocent. LWP which contains the words "without parole" are not going to be looked at, if you by chance the criminal is innocent, hence is why there is no parole. Atleast with the DP, innocents have a chance to prove themselves, and 67% of the time, Death rows inmates have been released.

So, which sentence seems more fair? LWOP sentences receive no special consideration on appeal, which limits the possibility they will be reduced or reversed. A person sentenced to die in prison receives only one automatic appeal, not several, and is not provided any court-appointed attorneys after this appeal is complete, usually within two years of the initial sentence.

Regarding the amount of wrongful executions, Pro must prove that those wrongful executions , outweigh the number of innocent lived from these executions. Let me address the wrongful executions. In this case, it actually does make sense that the DP has a high rate of exonerations, because it means that those who have been wrongfully been convicted, can be free.

LWP victims are literally stuck in jail until they die. Lets do some quick math, , I show what that % looks like. 6/1,412= 0.004% of prisoners have been wrongfully executed, Since, the DP has saved numerous amount of lives (referring to the 28% I mentioned earlier) I see no reason to abolish it. With newer technology, DNA testing, and a panel of juries, the error rate will only lower, and clearly the # of lives saved outweighs the 0.004% of wrongful executions.

R2: Racial discrimination

There isn't any correlation that Pro has shown that these racial discriminations directly correlate to the DP. No evidence has been provided that indicates the DP lawyers tend to be poor.

R3: Publicity

Publicity is not the fault of the DP. If anything you should be blaming the media. Most of the time, those DP convicts are on T.V, because they committed some terrible crime. It isn't the DP, that causes all this media coverage, unless Pro is willing to give proof.

R4: Doctors

These doctors are specifically there to do their job. Nobody is forcing them to take part in a DP case. If doctors do not want to take part, they have every right to step away. We should let doctors make the choice.

R5: Hypocrisy

I fail to see any hypocrisy in the DP. You are simply killing somebody who killed someone else. He stole the right to live of somebody else, so what moral right does he have to live? The comparison Pro made doesn't make sense. In that case, we should never kill anybody, even when we go to war, because we are killing people for killing others. I can imagine what would have happened if we didn't kill Nazis.

R6: Government Control

Pro makes a good case here. I personally believe in minimal governmental control, but the judicial process criminals go through are more fair than what LWP cases go through.LWP which contains the words "without parole" are not going to be looked at, if by chance the criminal is innocent, hence is why there is no parole. Atleast with the DP, innocents have a chance to prove themselves, and 67% of the time, Death rows inmates have been released.

So, which sentence seems more fair? LWOP sentences receive no special consideration on appeal, which limits the possibility they will be reduced or reversed. A person sentenced to die in prison receives only one automatic appeal, not several, and is not provided any court-appointed attorneys after this appeal is complete, usually within two years of the initial sentence.R7: Religious reasons

In the United States, the Church and State are seperate. Pro cannot bring Bibical morals into the debate, as the law of the United States is secular from the Bible.

R8: LWP

I mentioned earlier why LWP cases, don't always do justice. There is no way to tell whether LWP victims are innocent, because cases aren't taken as seriously, and do not go through many trials as DP cases are. Like I mentioned in my first round, most criminals think rationally like regular people, so fear as a factor still plays a role.

R9: Cost

According to the studies provided by Con, he demostrates that most DP cases cost more than LWP cases. However, these stats provided do not take in factor of Plea Bargaining. What exactly is Plea bargaining? It is an arrangement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in the expectation of leniency. Most often that not, plea bargaining is used to to avoid the cost of the DP by substancial amounts, and will result in a cheaper case. The costs for LWP are usually over exxgarated, as the amount of time a prisoner serves and what type of prison it essentially is playing into factor. These costs provided by Con which are $44, 563, do not represent the costs of all DP cases across the country. Also, these estimates, do not take Plea Barganing into factor.

Con makes a mistake here. He mentions., "44,563*50 = 2,228,150. So this is 2.2 million" So basically, this is the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail, "after" he has been sentenced. If you take the cost of the LWP case in the first place, you would see that the cost is actually 2.2million+ 2.01 million (cost of the LWP case) So, using the statistics provided by Con, you can see the costs are actually higher, when we take the costs of the LWP case, and the actual cost of keeping the criminal in jail itself. Then again, it isn't an accurate measure this, because rates vary across states. Some states might be more expensive than others, and like I mentioned again, this study doesn't support Plea Bargaining like I mentioned.

Also, the cost of the DP varies among the juristrictions of different states. In some cases, it has been shown that the cost of the DP was pretty much the same as the LWP case. This trend was discovered by Sorenson and Rocky Leann Pilgrim published evidence that found that the cost of an LWOP case in Texas and a DP were the same.

Another factor that must be taken into factor is the dettering factor. According to Mr.Lott, who wrote a book on the effects of the DP, he estimated, that after calculating all other variables, the DP actually prevented 12% to 14% of crime that could have occured in the 90's, when the crime rate was quite high. In this case, the DP actually prevented murders from occuring in the first place. If you go back to my first source from Ms. Shepard, she figured that one execution was roughly equalivlent to preventing a total of 3 murders. And finally, Pro says "Why do we have to pay money out of our TAX PAYER MONEY to kill people? Why do we have to pay for criminals we have nothing to do with?" Why should we pay to keep rapists, serial killers etc... alive, when they receive clothes, 3 square meals a day? They literally are provided with all nesccities required to live.

10: Mentally ill people

Pro is quite right. Executing mentally ill people is un-constitutional, and shouldn't be allowed. However, this isn't a good enough reason to ban the DP all together. Simple ammendments can be made to fix this.

(rebuttal for R1): 67% of prisoners on death row are not released. Where did you get that false fact from? Only a very small percentage are relased. The amount of people on death row who are innocent is 4/100 people. That number is less in prison itself. Life sentence gives prisoners the value of life. So, even if they were innocent (because every system will be flawed), they still will have the gift of life, and not death. 4% percent of people on the death row are innocent, 2.5% of people in a regular prison facility are innocent. The number is higher for death row - and that proves my point. And if there is clear evidence that someone on LWP is innocent, there will not be a need for a parole hearing, the prison will just set them free.

(rebuttal for R2): As I have mentioned before, "There is racial and economic discrimination in application of the death penalty: "About 99 percent of the death-row inmates are men. Of the 1,058 prisoners on death row by Aug. 20,1982, 42 percent were black, whereas about 12 percent of the United States population is black. Those who receive the death penalty still tend to be poor, poorly educated and represented by public defenders or court-appointed lawyers." This is a racist and sexist act that happens to frequently to be allowed." Also, Several years after the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, a University of Iowa law professor, David C. Baldus (who died last month), along with two colleagues, published a study examining more than 2,000 homicides that took place in Georgia beginning in 1972. They found that black defendants were 1.7 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants and that murderers of white victims were 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks." (http://www.nytimes.com...)

(rebuttal for R3): If there were no death penalty in the first place, then the media woild not have to cover anything. Sure, the media does influence publicity on criminals, but that is only because the DP opens the door for such publicity.

(rebuttal for R4): You make a good point. However, there are not many people who volunteer as excecutors. There is a reason why there are 3 people inserting needles and only one has the poison. There is a reason why 10 people are shooting and only one has the deadly bullet, because it is inhumane. And we all know that. Once when we can accept the deeper meaning of this horific practice, then we can move on from this negative punishment.

(rebuttal for R5):While you made a good comparison, as I have mentioned before, "It is hipocritical: Why are we killing people for killing people? Why are we doing the same thing we are punishing others for doing? That is obsurd." That is all I will say for this section.

(rebuttal for R6): Once again - I cannot take your percentages seriously because you have not cited any evidence. And saying that one way is more fair then the other is opinionated, we are trying to only focus on the facts. I already explained my argument for this in my rebuttal for section 1. We are starting to go in circles so I will not repeat myself, basically, your R1 & R6 arguments are the same.

(rebuttal for R7): Unfortunatly, nowadays we cannot seem to seperate church from state. How come topics like gay marriage and abortion were so hard to find an aswer to? Because our country cannot seem to ceperate the two, and the same will go for this topic.

(rebuttal for R8): The same thing for people on death row, it does not always do justice because most cases are not taken seriously either. And ther reason for that is because sosciety looks at these people like animals so they do not hesistate to execute them. And what makes you think that criminals think more like regular people? Pleae siite evidence. Because, "Hare estimates that about 50 - 75% of the prison population meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder but only 15-25% exceed the cut-off point for psychopathy." (https://www.psychologytoday.com...). If that is thinking like normal people to you then I dont know what to say. And as I mentioned in the first round, " There is a better alternative - life without parole: This sentence would make the criminals suffer every single day and be forced to think about what they have done. It is a more harsh sentence because they can not escape the negativity they created - they have to live with it each and every long, boring day. Killing the criminals is an easy way out for them - they will just think; "oh, if I kill people who I hate, then I will die and not have to deal with it." Wouldn't that encourage more criminals to act? This would make crime rates increase."

(rebuttal for R9): But plea barganing at the end of the day is not the cost of ONLY THE EXECUTION. We are just talking about the cost of the EXECUTION ITSELF. That is not true. I will use various more websites to prove the cost is higher for the DP then LWP. "Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population." (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). "The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case." (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). " California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978 (about $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried out) California spends an additional $184 million on the death penalty per year because of the additional costs of capital trials, enhanced security on death row, and legal representation. The study’s authors predict that the cost of the death penalty will reach $9 billion by 2030." (http://deathpenalty.org...).

(rebuttal for R10): Thank you for agreeing, but how can ammendments fix this? Where will we get the money to add such ammendments? And I provided many other reasons to go along so this is just the icing on the cake.

I'm sorry, but the debating rules state that voters cannot take anything from the comments section and involve it in their votes. So your sources will need to be provided in your final round to count. Just trying to help.

Sorry, I have to make this round very quick. The formatting might not be on par with my previous rounds

R1: Aplogizes, my 67% stat was referring to something else. What exactly do you mean by value of life? Do you think we should keep waterboarding legal, because it still gives the value of life? Also, your numbers for innocent people in prison are wrong. It stats that 2.5% can go up to 5%, and 2.5% is alot more prisoners than the 4% of DR prisoners. Pro you are making up hypothetical situations. Nobody has ever been released from LWP, and that is a fact. Like I explained before, LWP cases, do not get special consideration like they do for DP. This is exactly why some DR inmates, prefer the DP, instead of LWP.

R2: It is true African-American inmates, are more likely to be executed, however this trend can be witnessed in the entire Judicial system itself. Black people simply commit more crimes, than any other race in the United States, despite being only a minority.

R3: Pro is simply repeating what she mentioned before. Pro never provided any reasons as to why the DP is the reason for these media coverings. The coverage for the Boston marathon bomber was already present, long before he was sentenced to death.

R4: What Pro mentioned are simply pre-cautions to make sure the executioner does not have to live with guilt for the rest of his life. Pro kind of already answered her own question, nobody would know who actually killed the criminal, so thats why those pre-cautions exist.

R5: Pro didn't exacty refute my argument here, so I will leave it at that also. Saying its wrong for killing somebody for killing somebody else, would mean all the efforts we took in previous wars, were all wrong.

R6: There isn't really any opiniated statement right there. I simply was comparing what chances LWP convicts, go through compared to their DP convicts. I'm not going to repeat my self, but readers, you can compare the differences and see whether who receives a more fair trial.

R7:Pro, No where in the constitution does it say that it is because of the Bible we made such law. Just because some religious people are saying something doesn't mean it should be in the law.

R8: They actually are taken more seriously than LWP. I actually provided evidence with sources, whereas Pro did not. I did cite my evidence. Please refer to the 1st round. Your source does not specify on what type of crime the prisoner was in jail for in the first place. I have no way of knowing, whether it was for rape, homicide, etc.. Obviously, a Rapist would think different than a Murderer.

R9: We shouldn't only be talking about the cost of the execution itself. As a whole, like I mentioned before, Plea Bargaining can help avoid serveral procedjures in a DP case, which would astromically reduce the cost. And all your sources, do not take Plea Bargaining into factor. Pro also dropped my arguments regarding the cost being the same in some juristrictions.

Pro, you actually dropped some of my arguments.

The Amount of lives saved from an executionThe non-capital punishment states trends frrm the capital punishment states.